I've spoken several times about how our current partisan split works like a screw that systematically clamps down on our liberties as power swings from left to right.
To break out of this contraption, we need leaders who understand the mechanism ... and should avoid the "true conservatives who are dedicated to the partisan divide.
We need leaders who are dedicated to liberty (liberals in the sense that Adams, Jefferson and Washington were liberals), but who understand the modern mindset to avoid all of the pitfalls for liberalism.
The US Founders had a solid training in classical logic, and were part of a tradition that began to realize that creating a climate of freedom is largely a matter of removing those things that oppressed the people.
The founders studied history and realized that governments are the primary oppressor of people. So, the founders created a limited government charged specifically with a small number of powers to keep the government from undermining people and becoming the oppressor.
To get back on this track we need more than partisan conservatives. We need intellectual leaders who actually understand the dynamics of this system.
I really don't see many of these people appearing in the Republican party. Any that realize that the whole point of American conservativism is to preserve a liberal order get shouted down by loud mouthed wanks who have a knee jerk partisan reaction to the word "liberal."
To preserve freedom, we have to break this cycle where freedom is diminished from both the left and right. It will take a complete different dialog than the dialog on Fox and in mainstream conservatism.
Such a dialog does not begin with criticism of one's partisans opponents but reflection on one's own intentions and how one's actions can undermine one's intentions.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Is "True Conservativism" What We Really Need?
By the nature of politicians, the terms used in politics have no meaning. Politicians are constantly in a mode of action and reaction as the parties swap position on issues to gain political advantage.
The fact that politicians favoring big government and reduced individual freedom call themselves "liberal" shows that political words have no meaning.
The left, which is intoxicated with foolish notions of change, is generally worse with definitions than the right. I do applaud William Buckley's conservative movement for trying to preserve meanings.
Despite the fact that many conservatives value the preservation of meaning, the term "conservative" has taken on so many contradictory meanings through the years to become as problematic as "liberal."
At heart a "conservative" is someone reluctant to make changes to the existing political order. One can place the label on a tory, an US Conservative or any old guard communist of the former soviet union.
In the United States, Conservatives were desparately trying to preserve the institutions of liberty against the onslaught of modern progressive idiocy.
With the back to back progressives (the "compassionate conservative" Bush and "change agent" Obama) our nation is mired in a deep rut, and it is very unlikely that the old style political left/right political divide being a paradoxical-liberalism and paradoxical-conservatism will save us.
As such, I am dismayed when I see our new leaders popping up with slogan like "Vote me, I am the 'true conservative'."
It is the whole political system built around a "left/right" split which caused our slide into socialism. What we need is thinking that transcends the false dichotomy.
Don't you see? Declaring oneself the "true conservative" implies an allegiance to the false dichotomy.
What we need are leaders who can show us that the system of American liberty can lead to prosperity and progress.
One interesting way to restore liberty would be for the Republicans to make a concerted effort to steal the term "liberal" from the Democrats. With the election of Obama and the Pelosi/Reid Congress, Democrats have tossed aside even a token pretense to "liberalism" in favor of European style socialism (progressivism).
Instead of spitting at "liberals" while claiming Conservatives are the true champions of freedom, I wish Conservatives would take a serious stab at capturing the term.
Getting our nation back on track will take more than an allegiance to a partisan split, it will take a much more fundamental approach to the ideas surrounding liberty.
Unfortunately, we cannot do this with the current political lexicon. The defenders of liberty must proactively engage in political discourse in ways that restore the language so that we can effectively defend liberty.
The fact that politicians favoring big government and reduced individual freedom call themselves "liberal" shows that political words have no meaning.
The left, which is intoxicated with foolish notions of change, is generally worse with definitions than the right. I do applaud William Buckley's conservative movement for trying to preserve meanings.
Despite the fact that many conservatives value the preservation of meaning, the term "conservative" has taken on so many contradictory meanings through the years to become as problematic as "liberal."
At heart a "conservative" is someone reluctant to make changes to the existing political order. One can place the label on a tory, an US Conservative or any old guard communist of the former soviet union.
In the United States, Conservatives were desparately trying to preserve the institutions of liberty against the onslaught of modern progressive idiocy.
With the back to back progressives (the "compassionate conservative" Bush and "change agent" Obama) our nation is mired in a deep rut, and it is very unlikely that the old style political left/right political divide being a paradoxical-liberalism and paradoxical-conservatism will save us.
As such, I am dismayed when I see our new leaders popping up with slogan like "Vote me, I am the 'true conservative'."
It is the whole political system built around a "left/right" split which caused our slide into socialism. What we need is thinking that transcends the false dichotomy.
Don't you see? Declaring oneself the "true conservative" implies an allegiance to the false dichotomy.
What we need are leaders who can show us that the system of American liberty can lead to prosperity and progress.
One interesting way to restore liberty would be for the Republicans to make a concerted effort to steal the term "liberal" from the Democrats. With the election of Obama and the Pelosi/Reid Congress, Democrats have tossed aside even a token pretense to "liberalism" in favor of European style socialism (progressivism).
Instead of spitting at "liberals" while claiming Conservatives are the true champions of freedom, I wish Conservatives would take a serious stab at capturing the term.
Getting our nation back on track will take more than an allegiance to a partisan split, it will take a much more fundamental approach to the ideas surrounding liberty.
Unfortunately, we cannot do this with the current political lexicon. The defenders of liberty must proactively engage in political discourse in ways that restore the language so that we can effectively defend liberty.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
White Man's Fire
I made myself a white man's fire in my fancy new rocket stove.
I started by creating a lot of smoke, then I got a raging inferno with flames reaching a foot or two out of the stove. I then proceded to burn my plate of beans.
Cooking on the stove brought up the question of heating with wood.
The rocket stove is optimized for outdoor cooking. A more traditional Franklin Stove is what one wants for heating.
As I live in a valley with a pollution problem, I would want to go the route of wood pellets stoves for heating.
IMHO, the path to cleaner energy will have us using equipment optimized to the task at hand.
I started by creating a lot of smoke, then I got a raging inferno with flames reaching a foot or two out of the stove. I then proceded to burn my plate of beans.
Cooking on the stove brought up the question of heating with wood.
The rocket stove is optimized for outdoor cooking. A more traditional Franklin Stove is what one wants for heating.
As I live in a valley with a pollution problem, I would want to go the route of wood pellets stoves for heating.
IMHO, the path to cleaner energy will have us using equipment optimized to the task at hand.
Rocket Stove
I got my rocket stove in the mail.
Ironically, when the stove showed up, the county had a crew out on the street chipping up wood from the creek bed. The county was paying to chip and haul away the same style scrap wood I intend to burn to heat my plate of beans.
It is really silly that we spend so much hauling scrap wood away from our houses.
If people were using efficient wood stoves, we could reduce the cost of hauling away scrap, the cost of fossil fuels and not really add that much to the valley's pollution problem.
So, I am feeling super smug with myself today.
Ironically, when the stove showed up, the county had a crew out on the street chipping up wood from the creek bed. The county was paying to chip and haul away the same style scrap wood I intend to burn to heat my plate of beans.
It is really silly that we spend so much hauling scrap wood away from our houses.
If people were using efficient wood stoves, we could reduce the cost of hauling away scrap, the cost of fossil fuels and not really add that much to the valley's pollution problem.
So, I am feeling super smug with myself today.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Old News - Ten Euros Well Spent
I stumbled on a piece of old news, I wanted to keep for reference.
June 23, 2005, US News and World Reports claims that "eurolefty" groups such as Campo Antiimperialista were running a campaign called "Ten Euros for the Resistance" to fund the anti-insurgency in Iraq ... some of the aid being "humanitarian" aid for insurgents ... other portions of the aid being questionable.
It is amazing how adept the left was at using the war and Katrina to engineer a super majority.
June 23, 2005, US News and World Reports claims that "eurolefty" groups such as Campo Antiimperialista were running a campaign called "Ten Euros for the Resistance" to fund the anti-insurgency in Iraq ... some of the aid being "humanitarian" aid for insurgents ... other portions of the aid being questionable.
It is amazing how adept the left was at using the war and Katrina to engineer a super majority.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Glenn Beck Misses the Obvious
Karl Marx is the single most influential economist in western history.
But, like Lord Voltemort of Harry Potter, we are not allowed to mention his name.
Marx's influence has been primarily negative. For the world to prosper, we need to root out the idiocies of this failed thought system.
For this reason, I am thrilled that Glenn Beck is engaged in an exploration of the influence of Marx in the Obama Administration.
However, Beck's show is extremely frustrating because Beck is simply reacting to the image of Marx and ignoring the substance.
If Beck understood the substance of Marx, he would understand that people reacting the way Beck is reacting magnify the problem.
Marx was first and foremost a dialectician. He believes that intellectuals could control change by the creation and resolution of conflicts.
Marxism is not simply the idea that big government leads to social justice. Marx's main focus was on manufacturing conflicts that could then be used to engineer change.
Marx's greatest accomplishment was the dichtomy between the capitalist and worker that continues to dominate politics today.
If you read Marx, you will find precious little about the workings of Communism. Marx's thoughts on communism go little beyond vague slogans.
Marx's goal was to create a conflict that intellectuals could then manipulate. He was seeking to establish a thesis/anti-thesis conflict.
Like many thinkers of his day, Marx was an avid follower of Sun Tsu and Machiavelli. He knew that, in the art of war, the best way to win the war was to define the position of his opponent.
The goal of the Sun Tzu intellectual isn't to argue a good point, but to structure the debate so that one has the high ground and one's opponent the low ground.
One reading Marx, one finds that he spends most of his time defining the position of his opponents ... the anti-thesis to his thesis.
The trick behind this tactic is that the people, like Glenn Beck, who argue the anti-thesis end up deepening the conflict.
For anti-Marxists to be effective, they must to reject the false dichotomy.
Arguing the anti-thesis preserves the thesis.
For anti-Marxists like Beck to be effective, they must stop reacting to the images of Marx and dissect the substance of his work.
Reactionaries preserve an image of the action they re-act against.
As long as Glenn Beck and those wishing to defend freedom continue the course of arguing the anti-thesis and reacting to the image of Marx, the conflicts created by Marx will continue to grow and eventually consume our society.
To stop the process one needs to reject the false dichotomy created by Marx.
One can start this simply by looking at the books Marx wrote. The two primary works of Marx are "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto."
Das Kapital is a massive work in which Marx enumerates ways in which a corrupt ruling class can pervert a market. This perversion centralizes the market and leads to an instable society of haves and have nots.
The Manifesto is a simple pamphlet which uses the ideas from Das Kapital to raise those harmed by the perverted market in revolution against the haves.
To understand modern history one must understand the Material Dialectics. A primary idea of the material dialectics is that the intellectual class can engineer change by creating conflicts and using the energy of the conflict (the call for change) to rise to power.
This next part of history is not rocket science.
Marx wrote a book called Das Kapital. Shortly after this book, the modern definition of capitalism appeared.
The modern definition of capitalism is more in line with Marx's perverted view of the free market, than the free market that was emerging in the wake of Adam Smith and the US Founders.
Even Glenn Beck could figure this puzzle out if he just put is muzzle to it.
The pieces of the puzzle are as follows: Marx was a dialectician who believed intellectuals could engineer change by creating conflicts. Marx never defined communism beyond a few broad slogans. Marx wrote a horrendously long book called "Das Kapital" which created a perverted version of the market.
The people who translated Das Kapital from German to English used the term capitalism for this perverted view of the market.
Don't you see?
It's obvious if one just looks at history.
The perversion of the free market that keeps collapsing on us came from Marx's "Das Kapital" through the schools and into society at large.
Modern "capitalism" is dramatically different from the free markets discussed by the likes of Adam Smith, Ben Franklin and the US Founders.
The perversion of the markets that Conservatives cling to did not come from the American tradition, the perversion of the markets called capitalism came from the enemies of freedom.
Don't you get it?
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx's goal was to create a thesis/anti-thesis conflict that the ruling class could use to manipulate change. To create the conflict he created a perversion of the free market that we now call capitalism (the anti-thesis to his thesis).
And every time idiots like Beck argue the anti-thesis they deepen the conflict.
I wish I could reach into the television set. Grab Beck by the collar. Slam his head against the desk once or twice and ask in my loudest voice:
"Why do you keep defending Marx's anti-thesis when arguing the anti-thesis simply deepens the conflict?"
If you want to stop Marx, then reject the false dichotomy.
We need to reject all of the traps that the left has injected into our systems of thought and take affirmative steps to re-establish the system of freedom created by the founders of the United States.
The path that Glenn Beck offers leads us nowhere.
We need a better path.
That path could start by recognizing that Marx did not simply influence his followers. Marx influenced the entire discussion of economics and society, including a large number of the ideas that the reactionary right holds dear to its heart.
Our society is still suffering from the conflicts engineered by the Marxists. To move beyond Marxism, we need to understand that his creation was not Marxism, but a conflict designed to destroy the free society of the west.
But, like Lord Voltemort of Harry Potter, we are not allowed to mention his name.
Marx's influence has been primarily negative. For the world to prosper, we need to root out the idiocies of this failed thought system.
For this reason, I am thrilled that Glenn Beck is engaged in an exploration of the influence of Marx in the Obama Administration.
However, Beck's show is extremely frustrating because Beck is simply reacting to the image of Marx and ignoring the substance.
If Beck understood the substance of Marx, he would understand that people reacting the way Beck is reacting magnify the problem.
Marx was first and foremost a dialectician. He believes that intellectuals could control change by the creation and resolution of conflicts.
Marxism is not simply the idea that big government leads to social justice. Marx's main focus was on manufacturing conflicts that could then be used to engineer change.
Marx's greatest accomplishment was the dichtomy between the capitalist and worker that continues to dominate politics today.
If you read Marx, you will find precious little about the workings of Communism. Marx's thoughts on communism go little beyond vague slogans.
Marx's goal was to create a conflict that intellectuals could then manipulate. He was seeking to establish a thesis/anti-thesis conflict.
Like many thinkers of his day, Marx was an avid follower of Sun Tsu and Machiavelli. He knew that, in the art of war, the best way to win the war was to define the position of his opponent.
The goal of the Sun Tzu intellectual isn't to argue a good point, but to structure the debate so that one has the high ground and one's opponent the low ground.
One reading Marx, one finds that he spends most of his time defining the position of his opponents ... the anti-thesis to his thesis.
The trick behind this tactic is that the people, like Glenn Beck, who argue the anti-thesis end up deepening the conflict.
For anti-Marxists to be effective, they must to reject the false dichotomy.
Arguing the anti-thesis preserves the thesis.
For anti-Marxists like Beck to be effective, they must stop reacting to the images of Marx and dissect the substance of his work.
Reactionaries preserve an image of the action they re-act against.
As long as Glenn Beck and those wishing to defend freedom continue the course of arguing the anti-thesis and reacting to the image of Marx, the conflicts created by Marx will continue to grow and eventually consume our society.
To stop the process one needs to reject the false dichotomy created by Marx.
One can start this simply by looking at the books Marx wrote. The two primary works of Marx are "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto."
Das Kapital is a massive work in which Marx enumerates ways in which a corrupt ruling class can pervert a market. This perversion centralizes the market and leads to an instable society of haves and have nots.
The Manifesto is a simple pamphlet which uses the ideas from Das Kapital to raise those harmed by the perverted market in revolution against the haves.
To understand modern history one must understand the Material Dialectics. A primary idea of the material dialectics is that the intellectual class can engineer change by creating conflicts and using the energy of the conflict (the call for change) to rise to power.
This next part of history is not rocket science.
Marx wrote a book called Das Kapital. Shortly after this book, the modern definition of capitalism appeared.
The modern definition of capitalism is more in line with Marx's perverted view of the free market, than the free market that was emerging in the wake of Adam Smith and the US Founders.
Even Glenn Beck could figure this puzzle out if he just put is muzzle to it.
The pieces of the puzzle are as follows: Marx was a dialectician who believed intellectuals could engineer change by creating conflicts. Marx never defined communism beyond a few broad slogans. Marx wrote a horrendously long book called "Das Kapital" which created a perverted version of the market.
The people who translated Das Kapital from German to English used the term capitalism for this perverted view of the market.
Don't you see?
It's obvious if one just looks at history.
The perversion of the free market that keeps collapsing on us came from Marx's "Das Kapital" through the schools and into society at large.
Modern "capitalism" is dramatically different from the free markets discussed by the likes of Adam Smith, Ben Franklin and the US Founders.
The perversion of the markets that Conservatives cling to did not come from the American tradition, the perversion of the markets called capitalism came from the enemies of freedom.
Don't you get it?
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx is the father of capitalism.
Marx's goal was to create a thesis/anti-thesis conflict that the ruling class could use to manipulate change. To create the conflict he created a perversion of the free market that we now call capitalism (the anti-thesis to his thesis).
And every time idiots like Beck argue the anti-thesis they deepen the conflict.
I wish I could reach into the television set. Grab Beck by the collar. Slam his head against the desk once or twice and ask in my loudest voice:
"Why do you keep defending Marx's anti-thesis when arguing the anti-thesis simply deepens the conflict?"
If you want to stop Marx, then reject the false dichotomy.
We need to reject all of the traps that the left has injected into our systems of thought and take affirmative steps to re-establish the system of freedom created by the founders of the United States.
The path that Glenn Beck offers leads us nowhere.
We need a better path.
That path could start by recognizing that Marx did not simply influence his followers. Marx influenced the entire discussion of economics and society, including a large number of the ideas that the reactionary right holds dear to its heart.
Our society is still suffering from the conflicts engineered by the Marxists. To move beyond Marxism, we need to understand that his creation was not Marxism, but a conflict designed to destroy the free society of the west.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Rocket Stove
I am suffering wealth envy. I was checking out the Grover Rocket Stove on Stock Storage, and now I want one.
The primary reason I want a rocket stove is for the garden. Each year, the garden produces a large amount of twigs and fibers that I can't efficiently mulch; So, I toss it in the garbage. With a rocket stove, I could burn that waste to boil water for my morning cup of tea.
The oven attachment would be a cool addition. I could bake bread.
The rocket stove is $125, and oven attachment $110. The site RocketStove.org has the scoop on building one's own stove. (more)
The primary reason I want a rocket stove is for the garden. Each year, the garden produces a large amount of twigs and fibers that I can't efficiently mulch; So, I toss it in the garbage. With a rocket stove, I could burn that waste to boil water for my morning cup of tea.
The oven attachment would be a cool addition. I could bake bread.
The rocket stove is $125, and oven attachment $110. The site RocketStove.org has the scoop on building one's own stove. (more)
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Cypriots and Illegal Immigration
In the aftermath of the 1974 invasion by Turkey (wikipedia), Turkey induced 150,000 settlers to move to Cyprus in an attempt to tilt the demographics of the island in favor of Islam and Turkish control. The illegal settlers pushed the population of Cyprus over 1 million. The illegal settlers continue to be a focal point of contention today.
This game of countries using emigration to extend poltical control has existed since antiquity. Machiavelli wrote reams about colonialization.
When discussing large patterns of illegal immigration, one has to consider the reasons for the immigration.
Human history is full of rogues pushing people from one place to another to gain political advantage.
Unfortunately, an open borders policy doesn't work on a planet where the political leaders have taken to using migrations as a form of extending power.
This game of countries using emigration to extend poltical control has existed since antiquity. Machiavelli wrote reams about colonialization.
When discussing large patterns of illegal immigration, one has to consider the reasons for the immigration.
Human history is full of rogues pushing people from one place to another to gain political advantage.
Unfortunately, an open borders policy doesn't work on a planet where the political leaders have taken to using migrations as a form of extending power.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Property Rights and Slavery
Sadly, there's a large number of people who've dedicated themselves to reading hidden motivations behind words. For example, when I foolishly used the term State's Rights, I was accused by progressives of being a racist using a secret code word for segregation.
I realized later that "State's Rights" is a silly term. States don't have rights, they have powers. Conservatives would be wise to strike this word from their vocabulary.
Apparently, the some folks in history have associated the term "property rights" with slavery.
It is likely that some slave holders made pathetic appeals to property rights to defend the slave ownership.
Any such appeal is paradoxical and pathetic because slave ownership denies property rights to the slave.
Intellectuals of the 1800s reveled in paradox.
Intellectuals defending slavery used the term "state's rights" in a bad argument that state's had a right to deny a fundamental human right to the slaves.
Fundamental rights should not be in conflict. So clearly the flawed term state's rights is the source of the conflict.
The intellectuals of the modern era (ie, the 19th and early 20th century) held a strange belief that one could find hidden meanings in paradox. They went hog-wild with the term rights ... and messed up a great deal of terminology and logic.
People trying to defend liberty need to be aware of all the little traps in our modern language and need to weed out misused reference to rights (like "State's Rights" in order to defend fundamental rights like property rights.)
The claim that states have rights creates conflicts between individual rights and state's rights. Therefore, the concept is corrupt.
At the heart of the property rights debate is the assumption that one cannot deny property rights to another. Therefore, the concept of property rights is diametrically opposed to the ideas of slavery and segregation.
I realized later that "State's Rights" is a silly term. States don't have rights, they have powers. Conservatives would be wise to strike this word from their vocabulary.
Apparently, the some folks in history have associated the term "property rights" with slavery.
It is likely that some slave holders made pathetic appeals to property rights to defend the slave ownership.
Any such appeal is paradoxical and pathetic because slave ownership denies property rights to the slave.
Intellectuals of the 1800s reveled in paradox.
Intellectuals defending slavery used the term "state's rights" in a bad argument that state's had a right to deny a fundamental human right to the slaves.
Fundamental rights should not be in conflict. So clearly the flawed term state's rights is the source of the conflict.
The intellectuals of the modern era (ie, the 19th and early 20th century) held a strange belief that one could find hidden meanings in paradox. They went hog-wild with the term rights ... and messed up a great deal of terminology and logic.
People trying to defend liberty need to be aware of all the little traps in our modern language and need to weed out misused reference to rights (like "State's Rights" in order to defend fundamental rights like property rights.)
The claim that states have rights creates conflicts between individual rights and state's rights. Therefore, the concept is corrupt.
At the heart of the property rights debate is the assumption that one cannot deny property rights to another. Therefore, the concept of property rights is diametrically opposed to the ideas of slavery and segregation.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Local Control v. State's Rights
Oops, a few weeks ago, I made a serious blunder.
The primary accomplishment of the Obama administration's health care bill was that the bill wrested the regulation from the states to the federal government.
The media seemed to gloss over the fact that health care was currently regulated by the states.
Free marketeers, such as myself, tended to frame the bill as a case of a free market v. government control. The progressive media was happy to gloss over the fact that most of our discontentment with health care stems directly from the burdens of state regulation. It appears that progressives have many duped into thinking that state regulated health care was in fact a free market.
Anyway, I was so frustrated with the lack of discussion of state regulations that my withering old brain latched to the first term that came to mind in discussion state control v. federal control. I very stupidly used the term "State's Rights"
The term is stupid as states do not have rights. Only people have rights.
The tenth amendment used the term "power."
Neither the Federal Government nor the State Government has rights over the health care or property of the people. They simply have limited powers in these areas.
The issue I wished to bring up was local control v. Federal control. Health is an attribute of an individual. For the good of the people, the control of health care should be as close to the individual as possible.
The health care bill does mischief by yanking the control of our health care resources from local control to an increasingly corrupt Federal authority.
I blundered badly when I used the term "State's Rights." Anyone who is campaigning for the repeal of Obamacare is wise to strike that term from their vocabulary and to speak of local control v. federal control.
The 2010 Health Care bill wrested control of health care from local authorities (state, county and town) and placed it in the hands of the Federal Government. This was a negative turn of events.
I sincerely apologize for using an idiotic term in describing this aspect of the health care bill.
The primary accomplishment of the Obama administration's health care bill was that the bill wrested the regulation from the states to the federal government.
The media seemed to gloss over the fact that health care was currently regulated by the states.
Free marketeers, such as myself, tended to frame the bill as a case of a free market v. government control. The progressive media was happy to gloss over the fact that most of our discontentment with health care stems directly from the burdens of state regulation. It appears that progressives have many duped into thinking that state regulated health care was in fact a free market.
Anyway, I was so frustrated with the lack of discussion of state regulations that my withering old brain latched to the first term that came to mind in discussion state control v. federal control. I very stupidly used the term "State's Rights"
The term is stupid as states do not have rights. Only people have rights.
The tenth amendment used the term "power."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Neither the Federal Government nor the State Government has rights over the health care or property of the people. They simply have limited powers in these areas.
The issue I wished to bring up was local control v. Federal control. Health is an attribute of an individual. For the good of the people, the control of health care should be as close to the individual as possible.
The health care bill does mischief by yanking the control of our health care resources from local control to an increasingly corrupt Federal authority.
I blundered badly when I used the term "State's Rights." Anyone who is campaigning for the repeal of Obamacare is wise to strike that term from their vocabulary and to speak of local control v. federal control.
The 2010 Health Care bill wrested control of health care from local authorities (state, county and town) and placed it in the hands of the Federal Government. This was a negative turn of events.
I sincerely apologize for using an idiotic term in describing this aspect of the health care bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)